[blml] Alerting and Law 25A [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]

[Guthrie]

[Sven Pran]
One example is the present laws 61B and 63B which forbid a defender to ask
his partner about a possible revoke. Law 63B was added in 1997 to capture
the situations where a defender did not actually _ask_ his partner but in
some other way called his attention to the possibility that he had 
revoked.

I assume that what the Committee discussed was if any action (not only a
call) from partner shall close the time window during which Law 25A can be
applied and that the answer from the Committee was a clear "no"?

The TD must judge if the circumstances corroborate a claim that a call
actually made was indeed inadvertent, and if he finds this to be the 
case he
should then allow a Law 25A correction regardless of the manner in 
which the
player became aware of his mistake. (Of course on the conditions that
partner has not subsequently called and that the offender had no 
"pause for
thought".)

[nige1]
I think it is simpler and fairer for the law to penalize slips of the 
hand the same way as it penalizes slips of the mind. Hence I dislike 
25A, which seems to reward economy with the truth. Moreover, I hate 
the EBU interpretation that is the subject of this thread.

Case A.
You play a variable notrump. You are not vulnerable, but you think you 
are vulnerable and open 1N with a balanced 17 HCP. Partner (correctly) 
announces "12-14". 25A is likely to save you if you call the director 
and claim inadvertence.

Case B.
RHO opens 1D. With your 10 HCP and 5 spades, you intend to overcall 1S 
but inadvertently bid 1N. Partner announces "15-18". Under EBU 
regulations, this announcement is illegal but it is a common kind if 
mistake and normally escapes without penalty. Here however it wakes 
you up to your mechanical error. How should the director rule now?

Stupid and unnecessary regulations like 25A will always spawn such 
difficult scenarios. The honest player will be penalized. The 
dishonest or self-deluding secretary bird may be rewarded.

Anticipating a common quibble:

A player in our club had a problem with his grip. He would often pull 
the wrong bidding or playing card -- sometimes several at at time. 
Even 25A would not have covered all these cases. Of course, no daft 
law was necessary. We had no real problem! Naturally, his opponents 
always waived any penalty.